Scenario 1 - New/EU wide GECAS - 10:00-11:00 CET

Hello and welcome to this e-discussion on the feasibility of a New/EU-wide GECAS, as one of the scenarios developed in frame of the CASPER project. We look forward to a fruitful discussion, to bring our reflection forward.

My name is Marion Lesur, I am Junior Science Officer at the European Science Foundation (ESF), coordinator of CASPER. My background is in Gender in Development and VAW/GBV, and CASPER is one of very exciting projects with a focus on promoting Women in Science in which the ESF has been involved.

We are happy and lucky to have two gender experts with us this morning – Angela Wroblewski from the Institute for Advanced Studies (IHS) in Austria, and Maxime Forest from Sciences Po (OFCE) in France – who will be sharing their insights as opening remarks.

10 minutes before start, I will leave the e-floor to them for a short introduction followed by remarks.

Good Morning! My name is Angela Wroblewski and I’m happy to comment on scenario 1 – a new EU wide-GECAS. I will do that from the perspective of an evaluator of gender equality policies and as the coordinator of the H2020 structural change project TARGET – Taking a reflexive approach to gender equality for institutional transformation.

Scenario 1 suggests developing a new EU wide GECAS. The main advantage and at the same time the main challenge of this approach is that it requires a EU wide discourse about gender equality objectives and standards for gender equality plans (GEPs). An effective GECAS has to be based on a shared understanding of gender equality, gender equality objectives and minimum standards for GEPs. Experiences with the implementation of the ERA roadmap at national level through the development of national action plans depicted a lack of a common understanding of gender equality (see GENDERACTION WP3 report). The 3-dimensional gender equality objective in ERA (fixing the numbers, fixing the institutions and fixing the knowledge) has not been adopted by all member states in their national action plans.

Having that in mind I would like to discuss some aspects of the new EU-wide GECAS:

The proposed scheme requires a GEP which considers 3 out of 5 recommended areas. This would allow institutions to focus on fixing the women and gender studies but leaving structural change out. Is that intended?

The aim is to certify GEPs which are based on a public commitment of the institution, dedicated resources, data collection and monitoring and capacity building. It is not explicitly mentioned that data collection includes an audit (a comprehensive analysis of gender imbalances in the institution) as a starting point for the development of the GEP.

It is planned that departments or faculties apply for the EU-wide GECAS with an endorsement of the institution. This somehow contradicts the requirement of a public commitment of the institution to the process. I think it would be important that an institution applies for the certification even if the institution chooses a stepwise approach and starts with one department or faculty. However, it should be avoided that within an institution departments or faculties develop individual gender equality polices which probably contradict each other.

It is a pleasure to join this important discussion on the scenario consisting in establishing a brand new, EU-Wide GECAS. A scholar specialized in gender equality policies at Sciences Po Paris, I have been involved for over ten years in designing, implementing and assessing gender equality policies. Since 2013, I have been more specifically dealing with advancing gender equality and integrating the gender dimension in research and higher education institution, being involved in several EU-funded initiatives devoted to implementing GEPs as a scientific coordinator, expert or trainer. A gender expert and trainer at Yellow Window, I am contributing to developing and delivering contents for the EU-wide Gender Equality Academy. I am especially interested in this discussion over GECAS for RPOs and RFOs committed to gender equality: a few years ago, I helped setting up a working group on certification awards at the French Ministry of Gender Equality, and supported my own university in being the first in France to secure the national award for gender equality in the workplace. Yet, I believe that a EU-wide scheme would now better serve the purpose!

Hi,

my name is Marie Schwan and I am a trainee at the gender equality office in the german federal enviroment agency. I am thrilled to participate in this discussion, although I'm not reaally sure on how to access it, since I am not really familiar with this website and how everything works. Hopefully, I will be able to join as soon as possible!

I believe that although the most challenging to set up, scenario 1 best responds to current needs in terms of establishing a common, EU-wide ground for assessing RFOs' and RPOs' efforts towards achieving gender equality. This is especially needed as member states and individual organisations are moving at very different paces towards this goal, posing different challenges in terms of building a common understanding of issues at stake and the way to structurally tackle them. Gender Equality Plans have been made legally mandatory in several EU MS, thus creating new scenarios for their implementation but also new challenges for coordinating domestic settings with objectives adopted and practices promoted at the EU/ERA levels.

Good morning. My name is Agostina Allori. I am a gender equality consultant at Yellow Window and a core team member for the CASPER Project.

Thank you Angela and Maxime.

Comments for Angela: I find really interesting what you mentioned about building a common EU discourse towards GE. The new EU GECAS as it is envisioned seeks to cover at least 3 out of the 5 recommended areas. Covering 3 areas is the minimum requirement.

Thanks again! 

Although ambitious, I consider that Scenario one appropriately identifies the main constraints for its successful roll-out, such as the synergies and coordination to be found with national authorities overseing research and higher education policies. It also reflects the state of the art among the broadening European community of practitioners in implementing Gender Equality Plans at Research Performing and Research Funding Organisations, as it focuses on stakeholders' commitment, processes and sustainability, and rightfully establishes a direct link to the GEP building blocks promoted by DG Research. It is also sound in providing prospects for connecting existing GECAS with the new one, such as fast tracks for validation.

Hi, my name is Karin Höhne and I work as equal opportunity officer at the Berlin Institute of Health. I was wondering, if  such a certificate would have any consequences for the institutions. Would it be linked to the ability to apply for funding to have this certificate or are there any other consquences, that would put some pressure on the institutions to make some effort to get it and to improve after 4 years? 

I support the proposal that the certificate has to be renewed after a certain period. Four years sound reasonable. I would like to discuss the aspect that for a renewal actions implemented are evaluated. I wonder why not the GEP is evaluated including the actions taken in the context of the GEP. If the GEP is evaluated based on an analysis of the gender problem and given the context of the institution. To focus only on the actions implemented does not necessarily allow for a critical assessment of the actions and their potential to contribute to sustainable change. It would be difficult to detect GEPs which contain a set of activities which are implemented successfully but do not address a specific gender equality problem of the institution.

Hi, my name is Rachel Palmén and I work as a researcher at the GENDER and ICT Research Programme at the Open University Catalonia in Spain. I have worked on various gender and science projects for the European Commission including GenPORT, EFFORTI, TARGET  and ACT.

After reading the three scenarios I like the ambition of the first scenario as comprehensive - with it's focus on process and outcome. I am just wondering how level of 'achievement' - so 'outcome' can be effectively assessed given what we know about the difficulties of measuring institutional change and also attributing this change to a GEP rather than external contextual factors?  

A downside of this scenario, is that whereas it acknowledges the synergies with national authorities should play in its successful roll-out, it does not provide much details about the "how". For instance, due to the diversity of research and higher education systems in Europe, to the different levels of governance involved (such as regions with legislative capacities in several MS), actors to be involved at national/regional level would differ substantially. 

There is also no mention of national certification bodies or authorities (such as the AFNOR or AENOR in FR/ES), some of which have already developped expertise in assessing GE performance in private and/or public organisations. It will be important to liaise with such bodies if national stakeholders are to be involved in the implementation of the scheme.

This may be facilitated by the fact that in several EU MS, the leading role of the European Commission in developping standards for GE in research and the academia is increasingly acknowledged, some recent GEP standards developped at national level (such as those promoted by the French Ministry of Higher Education and Research) largely (and deliberately) matching most recent EU requirements.

An important aspect of the acceptance of the certification scheme at national as well as institutional level is its adoption in national policies. The adoption in national polices also requires a discourse about gender equality and the GECAS between the EC and MS/AS (see above). Neverthless, an automatic transfer should only be possible in case the existing national instrument is comparable regarding process, criteria and gender equality concept.

Thank you all for your engaging comments and insights. We will need to bring this e-discussion to a close but the thread will remain active for a week, during which we encourage you to share further. Concluding remarks will then be posted.

The next thread to discuss Scenario 2 – building on the already existing HRS4R and envisioning the setting of a separate but connected scheme devoted to gender equality – will be open shortly, and we hope to find you there for more discussion on a potential EU-wide GECAS.

Scenario 2 - A Gender Equality Strategy for Researchers (GES4R) - 11:00 - 12:00 CET | GenPORT (genderportal.eu)

Thanks for the contributors' insights and for hosting further this very important discussion!